Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Excerpts

Friday 12th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, confronted with the death of my mother four years ago, I have thought long and hard about this bill. Just days after celebrating her 99th birthday, she suffered a stroke, and she died three months later. Her final weeks were distressing, prolonged by unnecessary medical intervention. It was an experience which showed me the urgent need for a huge improvement in end-of-life care to prevent futile treatments and avoid unnecessary prolonged suffering. For me, that is very different from assisting suicide at a person’s most vulnerable moment.

Having sat with my mother in those last days, I can understand why so many noble Lords here today will argue that dying people should have the choice of the time of their own death. But I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark that the preciousness of life is paramount, and I have not changed my opposition to the principle of assisted dying.

We are going to hear a lot about international evidence. I think there is enough international evidence to suggest that, wherever you start, laws framed as modest and limited expand to cover non-terminal conditions, psychiatric illness and even minors. The Canadian example is very interesting on that point. There is a real risk of vulnerable people being pressurised to end their lives because they fear being a burden. There is a potential impact on the doctor-patient relationship, which could be corrosive. I worry about the application of the Mental Capacity Act, as it was not designed to deal with the judgments on capacity in this Bill.

On the issue of NHS costs, it is to be underfunded. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer said that it is very small compared with the overall cost, and he is absolutely right. My concern, to which the noble Lord, Lord Stevens, has already referred, is that over decades—and there is a collective group of former and current Ministers here, including me, who are partly responsible—we have completely failed to ensure the proper funding of palliative care. My worry is not only that we will not get palliative care funded wholly but that the money for assisted dying will come out of palliative care. With all my experience of the NHS, I know that is how NHS bodies think about funding issues.

We have had two Select Committees; they have identified flaws in the legislation. Coming from where I am, I ask the House that we at least have sufficient time to go through some of these very important questions. My noble and learned friend has said that he is prepared to make changes—although, interestingly enough, not to Clause 27, which gives the Secretary of State the power to set out the substances to be used to enable assisted dying to take place, even though the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested that we could start off with a list of substances in the Bill and then amend through affirmative secondary legislation. I ask him to give that some further consideration.

It is essential that we have enough time to debate the Bill and that the Government maintain their neutrality. I go quite some way with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I certainly agree with him that four days in Committee and two days on Report is insufficient. I am concerned about the position that the second part of his amendment will place on my noble and learned friend—in essence, placing him in the position of a Minister. It is why I hope the House will support the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, and my noble friend Lady Berger on having a proper Select Committee as well.